61–70 of 148 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Right #1 it’s not clear that this ∃ ∀ construction is a fair representation of what is being ‘sold’ by GPT-x #2 it’s also not clear what this proposed inverted formulation (∀ ∃) that describes what the author thinks GPT actually is even means. For every setting there exists a task that it answers? Does that even make sense?
Pretty sure you should read "for every task there exists a setting".
ChatGPT itself is in on the scam . The way i think about it is that ChatGPT is already superhuman at bullshitting, many people want to give it credit for being more capable than it really is. it is interesting to postulate if it is the “most likely word” heuristic that leads to this behavior (e.g. never says anything that startles people) or HFRL training systematically teaching it to say what people want to hear.
As opposed to convincing the user that it is their job to brief a suitably qualified contractor or employee to make a company perform the required work?
∴ humans are a scam
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Significantly economically impactful in some cases- obvious examples of call centers and first-line customer support. Is it that obvious? Yesterday I had a trivial but uncommon issue with my pharmacy. I reached out to them online - their chatbot was the only channel available. I tried, over the course of 20 minutes and 3 restarted sessions, to communicate an issue that a human would have been able to respond to in…
Do you have any reason to believe that the Chatbot was GPT3.5 or GPT4 based?
[flagged]
This isn't reddit, "butthurt" and similar low brow shit turns this into the same kind of cesspool. Make an adult argument or don't make one.
AI researchers are rather upfront about the need to use fine-tuning and prompt engineering for current AI models.
As to random forest models, wasn't the whole point of hyperparameter sweeps to remove the need for manual hyperparameter selection?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>contain "knowledge" or "intelligence" or "meaning" when in reality, it's just a very fancy Markov chain These are not mutually exclusive. If you have a Markov chain that 100% of the time outputs "A cat is an animal", then it has knowledge that a cat is an animal.
I think you are operating with a different definition of "knowledge" that the parent does.
I think the important part is information, the matter of 'awareness' can simply be ignored as a philosophical/religious disagreement which will never be resolved. What's important is: Does the system contain information? Can it reliably convey that information? In which ways can it manipulate that information?
I can walk and chew bubble gum at the same time: on one hand, yes, there's certainly a lot of Kool-Aid being drank by the AI folks. Even on HN, I constantly argue with people that genuinely think LLMs are some kind of magical black box that contain "knowledge" or "intelligence" or "meaning" when in reality, it's just a very fancy Markov chain. And on the other hand, I think that language interfaces are probably the n…
>it's just a very fancy Markov chain Could you provide an argument for why an LLM is a fancy markov chain that does not apply equally well to a human?